What Hilali said

Here's the transcript.


It seems we women are to blame for everything- rape, theft, global warming, the economy, war, famine, disease, natural disasters... I'll just leave it to you to read because I am actually speechless. Try not to choke.

BELOVED brothers and sisters, we have spent this good and blessed night kneeling and prostrating, worshipping God, Lord of the Universe, through the prayer of al-Qiam, listening to the most truthful of words. And from the Sura of Al-Ma'ida (The Table), I stand before you to discuss this legal, criminal, legislative position through a Koranic judgment issued by the Supreme Koranic Court of Justice for the crime of theft.

In it, God put forward man before woman. God says, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred" - an example from God, for God is ... What should it be, God is forgiving, merciful, or mighty, wise? No, it has to be mighty, wise, not forgiving, merciful. Not at all. No way. For God is mighty, wise.

So, we look at the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. In theft, the man was put forward before the woman. We come to the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. God says, "The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes."
So why is the man put forward before the woman for theft, and the woman put forward before the man. In the code of what? Adultery.

Dear beloved, God called the Koran the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. He called it the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. A book whose verses are wise, a book whose verses are detailed. And who is someone wise? The one who prescribes the right medicine for the right illness, we call him wise. And the one who says the right word at the right time, we call him wise. And the one who acts appropriately on issues, wise. All the verses of the wise Koran, at their beginnings and at their ends, there is a connection between the body and the end. Between the context of the verse and its beginning, and then its closing, the end of the verse.

"Forgiving, merciful" has a meaning. "Mighty, wise" has a meaning. "Forgiving, patient" has a meaning. "Patient, forgiving" has a meaning. "Hearing, knowledgeable" has a meaning.
Every verse, when it ends with the mention of one of the attributes of God, has a wisdom that is legislative, rhetoric, in the body of thatverse.

This verse in particular, the verse in the Sura of Al-Ma'ida, when the Koran was revealed, and it used to get revealed to the Messenger of God, there were no recording devices to tape them. And they didn't have then telephones that can take pictures and record. And at that time, there were no cassettes, and even 99 per cent of the people didn't know how to read or write. So they relied on memorising. On intuition. On their memories. One would hear the verse spoken by the Messenger of God, so he'd recite it and chant it in prayer until he memorised it. Very few knew how to write.

One Arab man heard this verse by the Messenger of God, and while he was in his field, his orchard, at his work - he's a working man - he was reciting the verse: "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful".

A nomad was passing by, he was a non-Muslim. The companion of the Prophet was reciting the verse, and the nomad was passing by. He heard the verse. Immediately, naturally, and with refined eloquence, he said that it was not right. Without hearing the full verse. So that nomad asked the companion of the Messenger of God what was he saying. He answered, "I am reciting something from the Koran". But the nomad said, "Your Koran is in Arabic, but you have never had such linguistic fault. Recite it again."

So the companion recited, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful". He (the nomad) said, "That is not right". The man said, "You, a nomad, (inaudible). He answered, "It's not right. And I challenge you that it is not right. These words could never have been spoken by Mohammed son of Abdullah, the master eloquent. And they could never be words revealed unto him by God.."

He said, "Let's go to the Prophet." He then said, "Oh, Messenger of God, I have recited a verse but the nomad corrected it for me." He said, "Yes, your companion says, for God is forgiving, merciful". If God forgave and was merciful, He wouldn't command the 'cutting off'. But He is mighty, wise, which is why He commanded the cutting off. The verse should end with "For he is mighty, wise". The Prophet said to him, "The nomad has corrected your mistake with the eloquence and good style and beauty of the Arabic language."

Yes, the nomad is right. "For God is mighty, wise", not forgiving. "For God is forgiving, merciful", that's in another life where forgiveness and mercy is hoped for. But in a verse where there is "cutting off", and where there is a limit imposed, God is mighty and wise, so He commanded the cutting off. But if He was forgiving and merciful, He wouldn't have commanded the cutting off.
Also, in the same context, what we heard yesterday in the verse from Al-Ma'ida, in its end, what Jesus said. "And when God asked: Oh Jesus, son of Mary! Didn't you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?" He said, "Be glorified." He did not even want to repeat the accusation. He didn't want to repeat the same word. He said "Be glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then you knew it. You know what is in my mind and I do not know what is in your mind? You alone know what is hidden."

We come to the end of the verse, "I only told them what You bade me. I said, 'Serve God, my Lord and your Lord. I watched over them while living in their midst, and ever You took me to Yourself, You have been watching them. You are the witness to all things'." We come to the closing of the verse, "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them, surely You are forgiving, merciful?" Not at all.

Why wasn't the verse ended with forgiveness and mercy? Because there is a crime of polytheism. God does not forgive polytheism, and forgives everything else. These people said that God took a son, these people said that divinity united with man, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they will see mercy? They will never see it, not him or his father. Not dad or mum. No one will see mercy, of those who believe in polytheism. Our Master Jesus knows that the crime is big. And there is no appeal for it. No way the judgment can be appealed. And they will never have intercession on the Day of Judgment, because polytheism is a great injustice. If it was a simple matter, the verse would have ended with "For God is forgiving, merciful". But it ended with "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them." They'll never see it. You will be wise, You will rule, then they'll cop it.

Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth. The issue is clear. So, the verse should be ended with what? "For God is mighty, wise." Not "For God is forgiving, merciful". In regard to polytheism with our Master Jesus, and in regard to the judgment on those who steal, rob and mess everything, God is mighty, wise. "The man thief and woman thief." Why, my Lord. I am wondering, why didn't the Koran say "The woman thief and man thief, cut off their hands"? While there is "The adulteress and the adulterer, whip them". Why didn't He say, "The adulterer and the adulteress"? It's because they are wise words. The reason for putting the man ahead of the woman in the issue of stealing is because it is the wisdom. This is reality. This is the truth.

On the issue of stealing, when the man is responsible for earning. He's responsible for the expenses, for the food and water. He is the one who has to pay the rent, he is responsible for the alimony, he is responsible for feeding his children. Maybe circumstances forced him and Satan tempted him, and there is a woman like hell behind him; she never has enough. She wants to change the furniture, change the lounge every year. And behind every man who is a thief, a greedy woman. She is pushing him. Not our women in Australia, the women of Canada. The hall up there is full. They are the women of Canada and Mexico, the ones who encourage their men - to do what? Go! Get me! And no matter how much he brings her, she wants more. She wants to change the car, and change ... Of course, the woman keeps demanding from her husband more than his ability. Either she will tell him to go and deal in drugs, or to go and steal. What's more than that? Spend as much as you have! You know your husband, upside down! If you demand from your husband more than his ability, then what does that mean? Who is the one who would have to become a mafia? A gangster? And steal cars? And smash banks? And deal in the "blue disease" (drugs)? Who is the one who commits these crimes of stealing? Who? The man or the woman? It's the man.

That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft, because his responsibility is to be the provider. "The male thief and the female thief, cut off their ..."
But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65years.

But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.

Why, Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not?
If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon."